President Barack Obama is getting anxious that Russian president Vladimir Putin is on the point of invading Ukraine.

You've seen a range of troops massing along [the Russian/Ukraine] border under the guise of military exercises, he told CBS News last night. But these are not what Russia would normally be doing. And, you know, it may simply be an effort to intimidate Ukraine. Or it may be that they've got additional plans.

So far, the West has deployed its economic and diplomatic might to punish and deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from those additional plans -- invading the rest of Ukraine.

Yet the Wests strongest option remains untouched: Military action.

While Russia rolled its forces into Crimea, the West clearly has kept its armies confined to barracks. So far the U.S. and its NATO allies have merely offered Ukraine limited military support and have flexed their military muscles in other ways.

Earlier this month, as the crisis in Ukraine escalated, the U.S. announced training exercises in Poland for F16 fighter planes and C130 transport planes. And generals in NATO headquarters in Brussels are planning for what could come next.

An estimated 30,000 Russian troops are currently positioned near Ukraines eastern border. Russias defense minister assured his American counterpart last week that the Russian Army will not move further into Ukraine. But Ukrainians  and many observers elsewhere  fear a Russian invasion is possible.

The force that is at the Ukrainian border now to the east is very, very sizable and very, very ready, said General Philip Breedlove, NATOs Supreme Allied Commander.

A Russian push further into Ukraine could leave the U.S. and NATO in a tight spot...

"But military strategists reject those options as profoundly unlikely.

No matter what Russia does in Ukraine  even in the case of a full-scale invasion  there is little chance NATO, or the U.S. acting independent of the alliance, will engage in a shooting war with Russian troops."

Someone who isn’t an arm chair general and has some military experience please explain to this old Marine what the hell the US can do militarily in this situation. Because for the life of me I see no military option here. We are coming out of 13 years of constant combat operations. Our troops are tired, our equipment is beat up with zero prospect of replacement anytime soon. Ask yourself this; Is this fight worth the death of just one more soldier, sailor, airman or Marine? I don’t think it is.

10
posted on 03/28/2014 1:26:20 PM PDT
by sean327
(God created all men equal, then some become Marines!)

You know this tough-talk by the Obama kids is all about domestic consumption. The Media know he’s looking like Jimmy Carter when the Russians rolled into Kabul in ‘79 and they’re nervous — the one’s that aren’t already flacking for Hillary that is... Those Mediots are happy to scuff-up Obama’s perception of being weak.

Look for Hillary to dust off her State Department pants suit and make a very serious pronouncement. It won’t mean squat, but it’ll sound good!

Europe has long thought we’re just warmongering hoards anyway, so the fact we’re now rendered irrelevant should be a source of happiness to them. I’m sure they’ll apply all the requisite force for the barrage of letters of deep, deep, deep concern to follow.

23
posted on 03/28/2014 1:57:24 PM PDT
by ScottinVA
(Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)

However, the question is whether or not Putin is willing to roll over top of American troops if they’re already on the ground in the Ukraine. Next, would east Ukrainians stand up for Ukraine or for Russia, because Putin wants a clear pathway to the Crimea that is now in their hands.

So, would Putin roll over already present American troops? Their purpose would be cannon fodder initially, but to put them there would mean a commitment had been made to back them up with all out firepower if the trip wire were tripped.

How to get a credible force there in a brief amount of time. The initial force couldn’t be ship-borne. That would be no surprise. It would have to be a large force air dropped to a critical location regarding the massing Russian forces.

The only possible locations to launch nap of the earth airborne troops would be ideally from Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Moldova, or Bulgaria. Would they even allow it? Certainly not if they saw spinelessness in charge of America.

The Ranger Regiment and a quick reaction brigade from the 82d would be the initial cannon fodder trip wire.

Would Putin attack or would he flinch? To force him to flinch, those troops would have to attack on any cross border incursion by Russian troops. We would have to be clear that this would escalate into the stratosphere if those troops were brought under fire in any way.

And then we’d be stuck doing another Germany for the next 50 years.

24
posted on 03/28/2014 2:02:07 PM PDT
by xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)

Jim,
The Russians have said their policy is any attack on their forces with conventional weapons by a major power will result in an immediate response with nuclear weapons. Disbelieve them if you will, just stating their policy.

25
posted on 03/28/2014 2:12:16 PM PDT
by PIF
(They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)

It doesn’t make sense for Russia to keep 80,000 troops massed on Ukraine’s border for too long. However, from Russia’s perspective, Friday evening is probably the worst time of the week to mount a big invasion, since global markets have closed for the weekend.

Would Vladimir’s friends at Gazprom ever forgive him if he didn’t schedule his invasion to create the greatest global buying panic in the oil and gas sectors possible?

Sunday afternoon would be ideal. First, the troops can surge over the line, creating a fog of war confusing enough to make Russian-instigated rumors of vital pipeline shutdowns credible, first to Asian investors, then on to frantic Europeans and Americans continually bidding up prices as the crisis builds.

As Russian oligarch Rahminov Emanuelsky once advised, never let a crisis go to waste that can result in a windfall of petrodollars for Mother Russia.

Yeah, well, the democratically elected government of Russia's most important strategic ally and neighbor isn't normally violently overthrown by Obama/Soros/sodomite EU funded, firebomb throwing insurrectionists and replaced by a Globalist Bankster puppet junta. What the hell do people expect Russia to do? Send a congratulatory fruit basket.

28
posted on 03/28/2014 2:26:54 PM PDT
by Count of Monte Fisto
(The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)

There is zero question there. The answer has been known for six decades.

According to orthodox Russian military doctrine, they need all of those ports on the Black Sea AND THEY NEED TO BE DEFENSIBLE BY LAND to be militarily viable.

As long as Ukrain was (ostensibly but not in reality) neutral Russia wasfine with that. Ukraine served double duty acting as a buffer. That was tue best possible state of affairs for the Ukrainians and really for everyone. As soon as the Eurocrats began working to politically subvert Ukraine towards joining the EU the Russian response became carved in stone.

This isn't a situation where there are a wide variety of possible outcomes. There are only two.

1. Russia takes Crimea and the connecting part of the Ukraine. Or 2. What is left of the west holds what remains of Ukraine and Crimea afte the entirety of Russia's conventional and WMD arsenals are completely exhausted.

I have serious doubts as to America's ability to pull Europe's fat out of the fire in the wake of Congress aiding Obama into throwing the Middle East and North Africa into war including our up to now allies.

Who would be stupid enough to join a coalition with us as part of it, even to stop the Russians?

31
posted on 03/28/2014 2:40:23 PM PDT
by MrEdd
(vHeck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)

I agree that the US has no remotely good military option in the Ukraine. That said, what I wrote was my thoughts on how to possibly make Putin flinch.

I agree with you. Everyone would think Obama was bluffing, and Putin would just maneuver around those troops and not engage them.

If Obama actually ordered the tripwire to attack a Russian incursion, most everybody in the world would be absolutely amazed.

But Rangers & a Quick Reaction Brigade is about the only course of action I can see on the ground. It would be a suicidal and/or stupid choice as a course of action, but at least it is a military option short of an initial attack.

It requires Putin to respond.

33
posted on 03/28/2014 2:48:35 PM PDT
by xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)

That’s a plan, but maybe surprise and risking large numbers of casualties would be unnecessary. Our Navy is already there along with nearby air and other support in various places. By Russia’s reactions to other events of the past decade or so, Russia wouldn’t get in the way.

But maybe the main problems are the obvious, bipartisan lack of American will to fight (markets, international trade, fuel prices, our Baby Boomer regime, socialist political factions fighting each other over the pile of recirculating debt, etc.) and lack of military budget. There’s also the obvious fear that China will move on something, if our military forces get involved in much other action. We’ve see a lack of will to fight Iran for over ten years.

What was once taught as being “unthinkable” in leadership doctrine is now routinely and publicly expressed, even by prior servicemen, including officers. The enemy is not only being allowed to build up. He’s allowed to move on allies.

Are they allies? That’s another previous assumption that’s loudly questioned in contemporary implications in bipartisan political speech.

That’s a great idea. Since they were originally designed to destroy Soviet tanks and the Air Farce wants to get rid of them what better way than sending the squadrons to Ukraine? We can do the usual show and tell while maintaining we’re demonstrating capabilities for a potential sale.

After the Ukrainians “steal” them, we can shrug our shoulders and file a compliant with the local police.

“Someone who isnt an arm chair general and has some military experience please explain to this old Marine what the hell the US can do militarily in this situation. Because for the life of me I see no military option here. We are coming out of 13 years of constant combat operations. Our troops are tired, our equipment is beat up with zero prospect of replacement anytime soon. Ask yourself this; Is this fight worth the death of just one more soldier, sailor, airman or Marine? I dont think it is.”

On the ground, there is no option. By the time we start moving troops near there, russia will invade and already occupy Ukraine. Now if we had already stationed troops close by, we could move into Ukraine and the Russian troops would not invade.

What we are left with is air and naval superiority. We can blockade all sea trade with russia. And very few countries can withstand a full blockade due to the interconnectedness of the world economies.

We can also publically announce that we will provide air cover for Ukraine and against any russian invasion. That might deter the russians, or it might not.

We have no legal reason to put boot on the ground. It would be a great idea if Turkey went ahead and closed the Bosporus to Russian shipping. With the murder of a Tatar activist in the Crimea they now have grounds to take action.

We can still do some damage with our ground forces. We have been fighting against irregulars the last few years. Our tanks may be older but still pack a punch. It’s just a matter of getting everything re-directed which would take forever.

I’m sure Putin and his boys are smart enough not to let us build up our forces anywhere close to him.

I just can't see us getting involved for Ukraine, or frankly, the Baltics. Poland? Germany? If it got that far, it's the end of the world as we know it. Countries 75% of Americans cant find on a map? We could land ground troops, but we cant keep them there. Our M.O. for the last 20 year has been airstrikes, because they are safe. How many Russians get killed by bomb from F/A-18s before we lose a carrier with 4,000 souls on board? Russia isnt our technological equal, but they can bloody us worse than anyone else, and I'm not sure we've got it.

Someone who isnt an arm chair general and has some military experience please explain to this old Marine what the hell the US can do militarily in this situation.

I'd love to hear that myself. Apparently the author thinks "military option" involves marching a nonexistent NATO force under a Russian land-based air umbrella, magically supplying it from somewhere, all to achieve an unstated objective with a never-ending deadline. What could possibly go wrong?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.